Forum:Political Structure - NAU
Based on the discussion in Talk:Martin Luther King, I decided to list what I know or recall of the NAU's politics so that we could work out a logical article on it. First, the Governor General exercises executive powers similar to that of a US President rather than just being a symbol as is the Canadian G-G. There have been comments in the book that he is appointed by the monarch rather than elected and the monarch is a respected and inspirational figurehead but does not exercise day to day power. However, MLK s a politician in the book and concerned with the opinions of the citizens (or perhaps residents would be a better word) of the NAU. In addition, several cabinet members accompanied him on his train trip to "New Liverpool" after the painting was stolen along with Sir Devereaux Jones, the Chairman of the NAU Tory Party. There was no mention of any Whigs being on the train although skimming later parts of the book Bushell sees a couple of Whig shadow cabinet members at a reception at the Russian Embassy. This suggests a NAU wide parliamentary system in place along with individual provincial ones which has explicitly been mentioned. Also, MLK is partisan since only Tories or professional civil servants were on the train with him and no Whigs. :A shadow Cabinet, you say? In a purely Presidential system there's no shadow Cabinet because there's only one party that controls the Presidency. He might invite members of other parties into the administration. Most recently in the US, Obama asked Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) to head the Commerce Department. Gregg ultimately withdrew his name from consideration, citing irreconcilable differences with the White House. (A lot of people incorrectly believe Robert Gates is a Republican, but he's registered as an Independent.) But when a member of the opposition party accepts a post in the administration, he's part of the Cabinet, not the Shadow Cabinet; there's no such thing. Rarely will the opposition party even bother to say "Well if we controlled the White House, Dick Lugar would be Secretary of State, and he'd do this and this and this. . . . " because then in the next election their candidate would be committed to someone who would not necessarily be a good fit for his agenda. :So this probably isn't a purely presidential system; executive authority must be shared to some extent with a legislative body, whether they call it Parliament or Congress or Legislature or Senate or Assembly or Burgesses (which would make sense, if it evolved from the first elected government in the colonies, Virginia's House of Burgesses) or Diet or Council or Reichstag or Landsraad. :Which, I guess, does not preclude representation in London one way or the other. The NAU government, whatever its constitution, may be something like the Scottish Parliament: A national government in addition to the UK government. Turtle Fan 02:35, November 2, 2010 (UTC) There is mention of a PM in London but none of a NAU PM and no one with that title accompanied MLK on the train. There is no indication whether the NAU send MPs to London or not. I also have a partial list of previous G-Gs based on one paragraph from Bushell's trip to "Victoria". He has a meeting with MLK in the executive mansion (America's Number 10 after 10 Downing Street in London, the PMs official residence) and walking down the corridor to the meeting room he sees a series of portraits of previous G-Gs: # Grim looking Jackson who enforced the freeing of the slaves prescribed by London, :::Andrew Jackson article, yay! Turtle Fan 02:35, November 2, 2010 (UTC) # Roly-poly Douglas under who the NAU spilled over the Rockies, :::What about Frederick Douglass? There is a bit of a spelling difference, but since "Douglass" wasn't his birth name we could hand-wave that away. Turtle Fan 02:35, November 2, 2010 (UTC) ::::Stephen Douglas can absolutely be described as rolly-polly. Frederick Douglass--it's a subjective call, I suppose, but I wouldn't describe him that way. Plus, with slavery ending in 1832, I doubt that a former slave would attain the country's highest office that soon. I don't remember the book that well, but I do recall that even in the rather amicable manumission, the idea that black people were fit for anything but servitude took quite a few generations to sufficiently peter out for MLK to be G-G without anyone making a fuss about it. TR 04:41, November 2, 2010 (UTC) :::::All right, Shorty it is. With no battle over slavery and no Abolition movement, it would be hard for Douglass to attain the national prominence he rolled into political clout. In OTL, after the excitement of the Thirteenth Amendment wore off, he and others like him found it increasingly difficult to remain relevant. Turtle Fan 04:59, November 2, 2010 (UTC) # Martin Roosevelt at the controls of his personal airship ad who was rumoured to take pretty girls up into the sky with him. :::There was no historical Martin Roosevelt that I've been able to find. The closest is the middle name of a great-grandson of FDR who was born in the 60s. Turtle Fan 02:35, November 2, 2010 (UTC) Jackson is clearly Andrew Jackson who was US President in OTL when such a decree was issued throughout the British Empire. Douglas might be Stephen Douglas, given when the US expanded westward. Martin Roosevelt is either a less well known member of that family or, more likely a composite of Teddy (adventurous, at the controls of his airship) and FDR (rumours of womanizing), a Daniel MacArthur. ML4E 20:45, November 1, 2010 (UTC) :I confess that I am particularly thrilled to see we have an excuse for an Andrew Jackson article. I'd forgotten those references completely. :More on topic: as I indicated elsewhere, I do have my copy, so now I'll be in a better position to join the debate. I remember none of the G-G references, for example. :Based on ML4E's descriptions, however, and correct me if I'm wrong, ML4E, but this system you are describing is rather similar to the Canadaian and UK PM system, wherein legally and technically, the Queen "appoints" the PM, but really, it's the voters. TR 21:26, November 1, 2010 (UTC) ::My money would be on this: Royal appointment as a formality to confirm the results of an election. Especially if the King doesn't work for a living in Britain itself. Turtle Fan 02:35, November 2, 2010 (UTC) I agree that there are shades of the G-G being equivalent to a PM what with his residence's address and a shadow opposition cabinet but there are differences too. For instance, there is no indication that MLK is an MP and his conduct seems more presidential than prime ministerial. That is why I had suggested previously that the Parliament elects him rather than the voters directly and then he is formally appointed by the Monarch as TF suggests. It combines aspects of both offices along with him being "selected" by Charles. With respect to Douglas and Roosevelt, unless you are keen to make articles for each, may I suggest that a list of past G-Gs be done instead, similar to what was done with Race Emperors. Incidentally, along with Jackson and MLK, we have Washington to make a category of NAU G-Gs. ML4E 20:57, November 2, 2010 (UTC) :Well, Stephen Douglas we have anyway. Martin Roosevelt--if all we have is "he was governor general who liked flying his airship and was rumored to take pretty girls up in it", then an article strike me as unnecessary, and keeping him in a G-G of NAU article only is a good compromise. TR 21:24, November 2, 2010 (UTC) ::Since we already have Stephen Douglas it would make sense to give him a little blurb, and the content available is so minor that the blurb would be equally little no matter where it went. And I don't see much cause to creating a master list when four of the five would just say "See Joe Blow|Joe Blow in T2G," so it might be better to create a Martin Roosevelt article after all. It's really the same amount of work either way, just about. Turtle Fan 00:25, November 3, 2010 (UTC)